lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] proc: export more page flags in /proc/kpageflags
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:31:09 -0500
    > Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 16:02 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:46:34 -0500
    > > > Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > > > +/* a helper function _not_ intended for more general uses */
    > > > > > > +static inline int page_cap_writeback_dirty(struct page *page)
    > > > > > > +{
    > > > > > > + struct address_space *mapping;
    > > > > > > +
    > > > > > > + if (!PageSlab(page))
    > > > > > > + mapping = page_mapping(page);
    > > > > > > + else
    > > > > > > + mapping = NULL;
    > > > > > > +
    > > > > > > + return mapping && mapping_cap_writeback_dirty(mapping);
    > > > > > > +}
    > > > > >
    > > > > > If the page isn't locked then page->mapping can be concurrently removed
    > > > > > and freed. This actually happened to me in real-life testing several
    > > > > > years ago.
    > > > >
    > > > > We certainly don't want to be taking locks per page to build the flags
    > > > > data here. As we don't have any pretense of being atomic, it's ok if we
    > > > > can find a way to do the test that's inaccurate when a race occurs, so
    > > > > long as it doesn't dereference null.
    > > > >
    > > > > But if there's not an obvious way to do that, we should probably just
    > > > > drop this flag bit for this iteration.
    > > >
    > > > trylock_page() could be used here, perhaps.
    > > >
    > > > Then again, why _not_ just do lock_page()? After all, few pages are
    > > > ever locked. There will be latency if the caller stumbles across a
    > > > page which is under read I/O, but so be it?
    > >
    > > As I mentioned just a bit ago, it's really not an unreasonable use case
    > > to want to do this on every page in the system back to back. So per page
    > > overhead matters. And the odds of stalling on a locked page when
    > > visiting 1M pages while under load are probably not negligible.
    >
    > The chances of stalling on a locked page are pretty good, and the
    > duration of the stall might be long indeed. Perhaps a trylock is a
    > decent compromise - it depends on the value of this metric, and I've
    > forgotten what we're talking about ;)
    >
    > umm, seems that this flag is needed to enable PG_error, PG_dirty,
    > PG_uptodate and PG_writeback reporting. So simply removing this code
    > would put a huge hole in the patchset, no?

    We can report those bits anyway. But this patchset does something
    clever: it filters irrelevant (and possibly overloaded) bits in various
    contexts.

    > > Our lock primitives are pretty low overhead in the fast path, but every
    > > cycle counts. The new tests and branches this code already adds are a
    > > bit worrisome, but on balance probably worth it.
    >
    > That should be easy to quantify (hint).

    I'll let Fengguang address both these points.

    --
    http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-29 01:59    [W:0.025 / U:91.284 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site